Time to start a new thread. My hats off to this writer.
By Ina Hughs
Friday, March 20, 2009
Appearing today in KnoxNews.com
A respect for life is the bottom line in both sides of the debate over President Barack Obama's lifting the ban on federal funding for the use of pre-existing embryonic stem cell lines in medical research.
Those in favor of keeping the ban trumpet their argument by saying the use of embryonic stem cells shows a lack of respect for life. Those who approve embryonic stem-cell research say a respect for life is exactly the point: This kind of research will have a huge impact on sustaining and giving life to people who suffer.
Here's my question: There are at present 600,000 human embryos in storage nationwide which otherwise will be eventually destroyed. Would killing them off show a more admirable respect for life than putting them to good use in research?
Opponents of "Frankenscience" build their case on the adage that it's not nice to fool Mother Nature - that an embryo is the beginning of a human being, and if we use them for research, we are, for all practical purposes, playing God.
But all of medical science is about "fooling" - being smarter than nature and altering its course: outwitting the cancer cells; pushing back time in patients whose hearts have worn out; doctors specializing in problem pregnancies who take over when the stork drops its bundle.
We pray for miracle cures, pay for costly treatments, advertise on TV the latest miracle drug, have fun runs and bake sales to support research - all for the pure sake of "fooling Mother Nature."
Not only do we respect life. If it's the life of a loved one with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or paralyzed from a spinal injury, I can't imagine turning a moral back on research that could, once again, alter the natural course of things for them.
This month's cover of Outdoor Life magazine has a full-page color photo of a young hunter in full camouflage gear, holding the half torso of a 188-inch antlered buck (his "behemoth trophy," the cutline calls it) which he shot and had stuffed. In telling his story, the hunter said he came across that deer while going after a doe his uncle had wounded.
Ask any hunter, and they will tell you they love animals. They respect them, and they can tell you 50-plus reasons why, besides being a heck of a lot of fun, killing deer is "necessary" in sustaining life.
"Respect for life" is a loaded phrase, and we obviously don't all think it means the same thing.
We admire people who donate organs to science. If a child dies in a tragic accident and the parents decide to let medical science use its skills to transplant a heart or eyes - isn't that morally admirable? To use otherwise doomed embryonic stem cells is not only respecting life, it is recycling it much in the same way. To disallow stem-cell research on embryonic tissue means that nothing comes of this life form. Its life served no purpose.
One of the more compelling arguments against using embryonic stem cells is that, if we give scientists an inch, they will take a mile. Will scientists be given federal funds to create embryos for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells? Will we lose our humanity by creating life in order to destroy it?
Look back in history. Everything from the printing press to in-vitro fertilization was resisted with scary what-ifs.
Good will win out. Yes, there are shady-dealing scientists in the world who abuse knowledge and make unethical decisions. You find those kinds of people in all professions, from clergy to politicians, academicians, journalists, lawyers, teachers - but they are a minority. And we can't let them prohibit us from going forward with ideas that will make this a better world.
By Ina Hughs
Friday, March 20, 2009
Appearing today in KnoxNews.com
A respect for life is the bottom line in both sides of the debate over President Barack Obama's lifting the ban on federal funding for the use of pre-existing embryonic stem cell lines in medical research.
Those in favor of keeping the ban trumpet their argument by saying the use of embryonic stem cells shows a lack of respect for life. Those who approve embryonic stem-cell research say a respect for life is exactly the point: This kind of research will have a huge impact on sustaining and giving life to people who suffer.
Here's my question: There are at present 600,000 human embryos in storage nationwide which otherwise will be eventually destroyed. Would killing them off show a more admirable respect for life than putting them to good use in research?
Opponents of "Frankenscience" build their case on the adage that it's not nice to fool Mother Nature - that an embryo is the beginning of a human being, and if we use them for research, we are, for all practical purposes, playing God.
But all of medical science is about "fooling" - being smarter than nature and altering its course: outwitting the cancer cells; pushing back time in patients whose hearts have worn out; doctors specializing in problem pregnancies who take over when the stork drops its bundle.
We pray for miracle cures, pay for costly treatments, advertise on TV the latest miracle drug, have fun runs and bake sales to support research - all for the pure sake of "fooling Mother Nature."
Not only do we respect life. If it's the life of a loved one with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or paralyzed from a spinal injury, I can't imagine turning a moral back on research that could, once again, alter the natural course of things for them.
This month's cover of Outdoor Life magazine has a full-page color photo of a young hunter in full camouflage gear, holding the half torso of a 188-inch antlered buck (his "behemoth trophy," the cutline calls it) which he shot and had stuffed. In telling his story, the hunter said he came across that deer while going after a doe his uncle had wounded.
Ask any hunter, and they will tell you they love animals. They respect them, and they can tell you 50-plus reasons why, besides being a heck of a lot of fun, killing deer is "necessary" in sustaining life.
"Respect for life" is a loaded phrase, and we obviously don't all think it means the same thing.
We admire people who donate organs to science. If a child dies in a tragic accident and the parents decide to let medical science use its skills to transplant a heart or eyes - isn't that morally admirable? To use otherwise doomed embryonic stem cells is not only respecting life, it is recycling it much in the same way. To disallow stem-cell research on embryonic tissue means that nothing comes of this life form. Its life served no purpose.
One of the more compelling arguments against using embryonic stem cells is that, if we give scientists an inch, they will take a mile. Will scientists be given federal funds to create embryos for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells? Will we lose our humanity by creating life in order to destroy it?
Look back in history. Everything from the printing press to in-vitro fertilization was resisted with scary what-ifs.
Good will win out. Yes, there are shady-dealing scientists in the world who abuse knowledge and make unethical decisions. You find those kinds of people in all professions, from clergy to politicians, academicians, journalists, lawyers, teachers - but they are a minority. And we can't let them prohibit us from going forward with ideas that will make this a better world.